Forgotten Campaigns.

[stormbringer3]

I'm thinking of getting another Civil War Battles game. I started looking at this because it's Game of the Week. I currently have Campaign Shenandoah and Campaign Atlanta. What do people think of this vs. other titles? The other title I've looked at on and off is Campaign Ozark.
Thanks for any opinions.

[mersh]

I like them both. Of the two I marginally prefer Ozark. You could get Forgotten Campaigns on sale now and get Ozark during the December sale.

[Excelsior]

I own both titles and enjoy playing them. They both cover often overlooked battles. Each contains enough smaller scenarios that can be played in one sitting, I agree with Mersh, get FC now and Ozark during the winter sale.

[stormbringer3]

I see that are 20 minutes and 30 minutes turns for the same scenario. Is one better than the other? What's the difference between the two options?
Thanks.

[Quaama]

I see that are 20 minutes and 30 minutes turns for the same scenario. Is one better than the other? What's the difference between the two options?
Thanks.

I'm sorry that I don't have an answer for you, but I do have a lot of other questions in regard to turn lengths.

It's very odd if a scenario has two different turn lengths. I don't have Forgotten Campaigns (I have most of the others) so do its manuals explain why this is so?

As a wider issue I've always been puzzled by some scenarios having 30-minute turns why most have 20-minute turns. To my knowledge it is never explained in any of the manuals. If it is I'd love to know where and, more importantly, I want to know the explanation of why a specific time for a turn was chosen in the various scenarios.

Surely they can't both be right because other factors do not change.
The hex size remains constant at 125 yards. So why are those units in 30-minute turn scenarios marching 33% slower than those in 20-minute turn scenarios? Conversely, why are those units in 20-minute turn scenarios marching faster than those in 30-minute scenarios?
The parameter data for weapons do not necessarily change in accordance with the turn length that I'm aware of. So why are weapons in 30-minute scenarios less effective than those in 20-minute scenarios? Conversely, why are weapons in 20-minute scenarios more effective than those in 30-minute scenarios?
The same questions arise for melees as well. Ditto for fatigue.

Essentially, if the turn length is different then the parameter data should be different in order that the movement abilities, weapon effectiveness and fighting ability in general all equate.

Also, why I'm in the mood for asking questions, why do stacking limits sometimes vary? While usually the limit is 1,000 men in some it is 800 (e.g. Overland's Fourth Epoch). The hex size is constant so why the change?

Therefore, to me it is not a case of which is better it is a case of which is right. One of those turn-length choices must be closer to historical reality than the other. Which one?

[ACWGC]

Why do some scenarios have different turn lengths? The answer to this is never spelled out directly in the notes from John Ferry.

For comparison, let's take a single scenario - The Battle of Brice's Cross Roads. You can fight it with 20-minute turns or 30-minute turns. How you approach the game and how you plan your strategy will vary according to which you choose.

In the 20-minute game the MP's are "normal" with 12/24/10 being the set numbers. In the 30-minute game the MP's are all doubled to 24/48/20. This, obviously, greatly changes the gameplay and makes the game much "faster" to play. The Weaponry effectiveness is the same though in both instances.

Why would John do this? I think it comes down to a game designer trying something new to see what feedback he gets. Maybe John wanted to reduce the number of turns in scenarios by 1/3 while also increasing the rate and distance at which units could move. In the 27-turn Brice's Cross Roads a cavalry unit would have a total of 678 MP's, while in the 21-turn version they would have 1,008 MP's. In theory, this might create a game which is faster moving and would see more action. But it might also, in theory, devalue long-term thinking as units move around so quickly. An infantry unit would march about 3.4 miles in an hour with two 24-movement turns, while in the three 12-movement point turns they could only move about 2.6 miles.

John is a smart guy and I think he had his reasons. He gave the players options to test out different things and I appreciate that. I don't, personally, like the 30-minute turns because I already have all the MP data memorized for 20-minute turn games. But that is not to say that his idea doesn't deserve a fair shake if it intrigues someone. It might even make the games move faster on the battlefield while also being completed quicker via PBEM since there are fewer turns. I am sure John (with WDS's support) decided, "why not give the players more options and see what we hear back."

[rahamy]

Why would John do this? I think it comes down to a game designer trying something new to see what feedback he gets. Maybe John wanted to reduce the number of turns in scenarios by 1/3 while also increasing the rate and distance at which units could move.

And there you have it...

[Price'sRaid]

In the 20-minute game the MP's are "normal" with 12/24/10 being the set numbers. In the 30-minute game the MP's are all doubled to 24/48/20. This, obviously, greatly changes the gameplay and makes the game much "faster" to play. The Weaponry effectiveness is the same though in both instances.

Why would John do this? I think it comes down to a game designer trying something new to see what feedback he gets. Maybe John wanted to reduce the number of turns in scenarios by 1/3 while also increasing the rate and distance at which units could move.

Except this doesn't seem to be how it's working. Firing up the Ft. Craig 20-minute scenario (012-620216) "Co B Scarborough" is in hex 27,21 with 12 MPs. It costs 2 MPs to move one hex through clear terrain with no fences or other hexside obstruction or changes in elevation. "Co B Scarborough" can move in a straight line to 27,15, or 6 hexes.

With the Ft. Craig 30 minute scenario (013-620216), "Co B Scarborough" has 24 MPs, but it takes 5 MPs to move the same single hex that it took 2 MPs to move in the 20 minute version. In this case, "Co B Scarborough" can only make it to 27,17 in the turn, or 4 hexes. So the unit is only moving 2/3 the distance in 1.5x the time.

[Quaama]

In the 20-minute game the MP's are "normal" with 12/24/10 being the set numbers. In the 30-minute game the MP's are all doubled to 24/48/20. This, obviously, greatly changes the gameplay and makes the game much "faster" to play. The Weaponry effectiveness is the same though in both instances.

Marching

On a good road in good conditions a unit in road column could generally march up to 2.5 miles per hour. This would allow for rest periods so there would not be much fatigue.

20 Minute Game

Infantry - 12 hexes at 125 yards per hex times three turns for distance moved in an hour.
12 X 125 X 3 = 4,500 yards = 2.56 miles per hour.
That's about right.

30 Minute Game

Infantry - 24 hexes at 125 yards per hex times two turns for distance moved in an hour.
24 X 125 X 2 = 4,500 yards = 3.41 miles per hour.
That seems too fast. Also, the game corrupts things a little due to the ability to stack units after road movement. Not much can be done about that although it effectively means we are changing from a 125 stretch of road into having up to a thousand men cramming into a 125 square yard area.

In the titles where there is no change in MPs in the design then:
20-minute turns = 2.56 miles (same as before); but
30-minute turns = 12 X 125 X 2 = 3,000 yards = 1.7 miles per hour (a bit on the slow side).

Weapon Effectiveness

It'd take a fair bit of research to work out this area given the vast number of weapon types and their effectiveness at different ranges. I believe that the original designers probably did their research on this although they may well have borrowed some work of others in board and miniature wargames. I think this also shows given the games use a six-sided die in determining various things.

However, as said above - "Weaponry effectiveness is the same though in both instances". This means that in the 30-minute turns weapons are nowhere near as deadly compared with the 20-minute turns.

For example, if a same-sized unit causes, on average, 4 casualties per turn at a particular range we have the following:
20-minute turn - 4 casualties X 3 turns = 12 per hour; and
30-minute turn - 4 casualties X 2 turns = 8 per hour.

So, which is right?
I don't know. I do know that most of our battles are bloodbaths, even by Civil War standards. Personally, I rationalise this by regarding 'casualties' as including those who 'have lost the will to fight' and therefore are no longer included in the strength of the unit.